So, Governor Romney's good-faith effort to comply with the law is somehow non-conservative??
Was he supposed to flaunt the law and impose his own beliefs on the state? I thought that we conservatives look down on such behavior, at least when a liberal does it.
Mitt consulted with his attorney and tried his best to follow the law. That's a trait I want in the President of the US.
It would see that some would equate his position to forcing abortion pills down the throats of expectant mothers. People get emotional and quit thinking sometimes.
He has clearly stated, over and over again, he IS prolife, but respects the law.
Sorry I can’t vote for someone that follows the law. (/sarcasm)
Good catch.
“Was he supposed to flaunt the law and impose his own beliefs on the state?”
This proves mitt will do nothing to work on abortion he will always use existing law as an excuse and does not care enough to spend any political capital on the issue..
Postings like this make me question the pro-life movement. They are as ruthless and unprincipled as the NOW crowd. Any means huh???
Was he supposed to flaunt the law and impose his own beliefs on the state? I thought that we conservatives look down on such behavior, at least when a liberal does it.
It seems that many of the pro-life "conservatives" want presidents and governors to ignore the law and rule by decree. Did they like it when Bill Clinton did that? Mitt governed as conservatively as possible given that he was Governor of Massachusetts, the only state to vote for McGovern in 1972. People get all bent out of shape that he appointed some Democrat liberal judges to some of the courts in Massachusetts. Well he had to get his appointees approved by the state legislature. There's no way the state senate would approve a strict constructionist.
Romney did not raise any legal objection to exempting Catholic hospitals until after he was criticized by his liberal Lt Gov and the Boston Globe.
But I'm sure it's just a coincidence of timing that right after Kerry Healey & Ellen Macnamara went ballistic on him, his lawyer just happened to decide that what was legal yesterday was illegal today.
Why didn't he do this BEFORE he signed the law?
TChris: “So, Governor Romney’s good-faith effort to comply with the law is somehow non-conservative??”
You mean overruling his own Department of Health attorneys and contradicting the Massachusetts Catholic Conference attorneys?
Guess you missed the rest of the story...from the original post:
“The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.
“Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.”
Never met a lawyer who wouldn't give up somebody else's life, limb or property to protect his own employment.
Here’s the deal - the Boston Globe starting doing hit pieces on Romney as soon as they found out he was going to run for POTUS, in 2005. Look at the last paragraph. It is very telling and is designed to undermine Romney as a conservative:
“The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.”
I thought that the First Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Religion WAS the law.
How can you force the Catholic Church to commit what, in their religious belief (your religion may say otherwise), is considered a mortal sin and still claim to have Freedom of Religion in the United States of America?
What next?
Force the Catholic Church to perform the Sacrament of Marriage for gay couples in order to comply with Massachusetts gay rights laws?
The Constitution trumps state law.
If Romney cannot get his head out of the lastest Gallup Poll results long enough to defend the First Amendment, what on Earth will that man ever take a stand on?